Leadership Confessions

Are You Ready For Christmas?

It's an oft repeated question in the month of December: "Are you ready for Christmas?"  Mostly, I take the inquirer to mean 'have you bought all your intended presents?' or 'have you stocked your pantry adequately for the volume of guests you are expecting?' or 'Are you sufficiently sick of your employment that you could use a few days off to finish out this calendar year?' (or some combination thereof).  But Advent, the season of waiting, is also a season of preparation.  We are to prepare our hearts with, at very least, the diligence and the intentionality that we prepare our homes or our calendars or travel plans for this high and holy celebration.

"In French homes, it is traditional for children to follow the custom of preparing a creche in the days leading up to Christmas.  For each prayer or act of kindness that they perform during the season, they place a piece of straw in the manger.  With each token of straw, the children are preparing the place for Christ to be born - literally, by creation a soft bed of straw, and also figuratively, by preparing their hearts with acts of kindness and prayerful devotion. The custom of preparing the creche mirrors the act of Christians preparing their hearts for the arrival of Emmanuel, God with us."  ("Christmas Eve: The History of the Feast", in God with Us, p. 119)  For a more contemporary way to enact this in your home, see here 

It is as if all through Advent and now as we come to the final few hours before the celebration, "we ourselves become the manger, inviting Christ to dwell within us just as He found rest in that Bethlehem stable" (ibid).  

So the real question is not about your home, what's under your tree (or, if you're a guy, what's still at the mall waiting for you to begin your Christmas shopping) or what's on the menu for the next few days.  The real question is are YOU ready for Christmas?  

Is Rob Bell a Universalist? (and other reflections on "Love Wins")

When something trends into the top ten items on Twitter, you know you've got people talking.  And several weekends ago, that's just what happened to Rob Bell in advance of the release of his latest book "Love Wins".

The subtitle of his book lays out the scope of discussion - "A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" - and then a 2 minute video promoting the book was released.  And then all hell broke loose (no pun intended - OK, maybe a little one!).  One of the lead bloggers from The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor, labeled Bell as universalist (which, in very general strokes is a view that says everyone goes to heaven and there is no hell).  This was re-tweeted by John Piper and Mark Driscoll and the firestorm accusing Bell of heresy was on.  

Problem #1 - Judgement without Engagement

Before we even get to the book, let's start here with problem#1...  This all happened on March 1, a full 4 weeks before Bell's book released to the general public on March 28.  Many of those blogging had (and stil have) not read a pre-release copy of Bell's book but were simply making judgement calls based on a 2 minute video in which Bell asks "is Gandhi in hell?".  Now, I'm no expert in this field but my publishing friends tell me there are two ways to sell lots and lots of books.  The first way is to have exceptional content so that people buy it because of the merit of the book (Bell's not going to win points in my book here).  The second way is to sell books based on controversy.  This is almost always much more effective and with topics on the table like "does hell exist and if so, who ends up there?" I think Harper Collins was very shrewd in their sales strategy.  

A Summary: 

I tell my students that they need to read the whole book before they start their review and critique because otherwise they might miss a key element of the flow of the logic of the author's argument.  Bell purports to be moving through a logical sequence of ideas, but I found the book to be much more of a random collection of pastoral thoughts then a solid philosophical or theological argument for or against universalism.  In his very trade-mark style, Bell asks question after questions after question (around 27 in chapter 1 alone... some of which are never answered or even meant to be answered) that many people think but are afraid to name or surface.  This is a distinct strength of the book.  It creates space for a dialogue that invites the reader to consider carefully their own pre-conceptions of heaven and hell and where they came from (Dante's inferno?  Paintings on your Sunday School walls growing up?).  

But this pastoral approach is also a profound weakness.  The biggest critique I have of the book is that Bell is working from the framework of personal and pastoral experiences to make his argument as opposed to approaching the Scripture without presuppositions and within the mainstream of historical Christian orthodoxy.  As an example of this, Bell argues that a person who has been raped or abused by a relative who did it in the name of Jesus could not be faulted for not believing in Jesus.  Bell rightly says that he doesn't believe in 'that Jesus' either.  But then he doesn't leave us with many options except for a suggestion that the person could be given another chance to respond to God's love after she dies.  This is where Bell's doctrine of irresistible grace collides squarely with his views on heaven and hell and who ends up where and when.

On Heaven:

Bell delves into heaven first and makes a case that the new heaven and new earth will be a merged location where "here is the new there".  In essence, God will create heaven here on earth.  This thinking is not uncommon throughout the history of the Christian movement but it's also not as mainstream as Bell makes it out to be.  He rightly and helpfully points out that "our eschatology shapes our ethics...  What you believe about the future shapes, informs and determines how you live" (46).  If heaven is a restored earth, then creation care makes sense because I am participating in God's restorative work (a key concept in Bell's theological framework) in the present.

But his thinking on this is fuzzy and speculative at best.  For example, in a discussion on eternal life, he states "eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection with God" (59).  While this may be true in some sense, it's also profoundly confusing because Bell skips lightly on to the next topic and leaves many interpretations open (hence the fervour from The Gospel Coalition blogosphere, me thinks).  Bell is ruminating and speculating on stuff that people like certainly about and so he's been made to pay a high price in terms of his credibility as a pastor and author.  

Problem #2 -  On Babies and Bathwater

At this point, some people would chuck the book altogether but this would be sad as there is some excellent material contained in it.  For example, Bell again and again reminds his readers that much of the discussion on heaven in the New Testament is couched in surprises: "When it comes to people, then - the who of heaven - what Jesus does again and again is warm us against rash judgements about who's in and who's out" (54).  

In many ways, this is more of a book about ethics than it is about eternity.  Bell wryly observes that "often the people most concerned about others going to hell when the die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem least concerned about hell after death" (79).  

He also has a strong argument for a multi-faceted approach to understanding the atoning work of Jesus, reminding us that "the point, then, isn't to narrow it to one particular metaphor, image, explanation or mechanism.  To elevate one over the others, to insist that there's a 'correct' or 'right' one is to miss the brilliant work these early Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors." (129).  

One of his main points seems to be a push-back against a more traditional evangelical approach to the discussion of the methodologies of salvation - a hands-raised decision based on a fear of going to hell.  Bell points out how this truncates the gospel into something of a ticket to heaven and misses much of the emphasis on the life of obedient discipleship that Anabaptists have always seen as part of the heart of Jesus' call to us:

"When Jesus is presented only as the answer that saves individuals from their sin and death, we run the risk of shrinking the Gospel down to something just for humans, when God has inaugurated a movement in Jesus' resurrection to renew, restore and reconcile everything 'on earth or in heaven' (Col. 1), just as God originally intended it.  The powers of death and destruction have been defeated on the most epic scale imaginable.  Individuals are then invited to see their story in the context of a far larger story, on that includes all of creation." (134)

This kind of passionate invitation to Kingdom living is where Bell is at his best in the book (and perhaps he should have stayed, frankly).

But is he a Universalist?     

The more problematic parts of the book come when Bell handles Scripture in a very arbitrary fashion, however.  He goes through texts that mention the Hebrew and Greek words for hell but skips over most of the New Testament teaching on judgement, wrath and sin.  His basic presupposition is that "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (I Tim 2) and since God is all-powerful and all-loving, God must be able to get what He wants in the end.  The means by which this happens is a bit less clear for Bell.  He seems to be saying that since God can't fail and the prophets indicate that God wants to redeem and restore all things, if something can't be redeemed or restored, it violates God's sovereignty.  This is faulty and weak logic, however.  It doesn't mesh with Bell's own argument that leaves free will in tact and it certainly doesn't mesh with the Biblical picture that in the end, there are people who reject God and who therefore will spend eternity separated from Him.  Not because God isn't all powerful but because he respects the choice that they make to reject Him.  Not because the way is too narrow, but because God has provided a way for all to be saved (see Romans 3).

So, in the end, Bell's not quite a universalist (or at least he doesn't see himself as such), but he isn't quite orthodox either.  He's afraid of people accusing God of divine child-abuse by punishing Jesus for our sins, but he insists that sin must be punished.  He's very selective in his use of biblical texts and quite speculative in his interpretation (for example, he sees the resurrection as the 8th sign in the book of John and wants to make a big case on Jewish numerology that this is all about new creation).  

In the end, Bell loves John 3:16 and all of the parts of the Bible about God's love (which wins in the end, hence the title of the book) but seems not to have adequately wrestled with Jesus' own words following that on judgement.  In the end, he raises a LOT of questions and doesn't spend adequate time clarifying his positions (which he is now being forced to do in a defensive manner, which never helps you understand what the author is really saying.  For a brilliant piece of journalism, watch him interviewed on CNN).  He challenges a theology of evacuation but doesn't provide solid footing on these important topics for people to stand on.  He is pushing back against an emotive or angry picture of God but he may just be creating a God that fits our culture perfectly.  

So don't go out and burn your Nooma videos but do read Love Wins with a discerning mind and a good grasp on historical Christian confessions and a good group of theologically grounded people to process it with.         

Religion May Die Out in Canada, New Study Says

Non-linear dynamics can explain a lot of things but apparently, it can now explain why religion is going to die out in 9 countries, reads a recent report to the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, TX.  Using census data going back 100 years from 9 countries including Canada, a team led by researcher Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, proposes that because of the meteoric rise of people claiming "no religious affiliation" in nine modern, secular democracies, that religion there will die out in these cultures in the not-to-distant future.  

The model is based upon a similar analysis of minority languages and how they tend to be subsumed by majority speakers.    

The question of the day for response by you as readers is this: "what does the model fail to account for"?

How to Become a Good Legalist

I found this list online last week...  It's a fantastic description of fundamentalism and legalism.  Enjoy!

Step 1. Make lots of rules

2. Push yourself to try and keep your rules

3. Castigate yourself when you don’t

4. Become proud when you do keep them

5. Appoint yourself as judge over other people

6. Get angry with people who break your rules or have different rules

7. “Beat” the losers

Source: http://www.henze-associates.com/blog/

When Christians Loose Their Minds: An argument from a secular humanist that Jesus should be taught in the classroom

A few weekends ago, Douglas Todd wrote a piece in the Vancouver Sun newspaper about religious literacy (or the lack thereof).  It was a great piece and I re-posted the first half of his article here.  Since then, a brew-ha-ha of the kind that can only form online where your annonymity is preserved with clever names like "vancouverrealestate=drugmoney" has been unfloding in the comment section of his blog.  Civility abandoned and logic aside, several keen readers have been taking each other to task on some of Todd's conclusions as well as their opponents religious beliefs (or lack thereof).  

Let me simply re-post the longer half of Todd's article here and then make some comments of my own at the end:

"Why is such cluelessness [religious illiteracy] dangerous for us all?

Boston College Prof. Stephen Prothero (below left) has outlined some of the worries in a best-selling book titled Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - and Doesn't (Harper San Francisco).

Prothero's arguments go far beyond concern over how North Americans are becoming unable to understand the Biblical references of a host of writers, from Shakespeare to William Faulkner, Robertson Davies to Mordecai Richler.

Nor would many North Americans now understand the Jewish link when TV announcers refer to "David and Goliath," says Prothero. Or when politicians urge compassion for strangers by citing the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan.

What is even more significant is that Christian illiteracy runs rampant at the same time two out of three Americans believe the Bible has the answer to all of life's important questions.

During the recent Bush administration, nine out of 10 members of the U.S. Congress said they always consult the Bible before voting on legislation.

The frightening social implications of North Americans' lack of knowledge about the Bible they profess to take so seriously -- or about other religions -- is perhaps most important when it comes to foreign affairs.

The U.S., Canada and other quasi-Christian Western nations are embroiled in long wars against two Muslim countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, in an era marked by the West's "war on [Islamic] terrorism," most North Americans' understandings about Muslims remains at a "kindergarten" level, Prothero maintains.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York, some politicians tried to counter claims by the powerful Religious Right that "Islam is a religion of war" with the sweeping generalization that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Swept up by emotions, however, the majority of Americans had no knowledge on which to make any judgment. The Pew Forum study found that half could not name the Koran as the Muslim holy book, or Ramadan as an Islamic festival. Fewer yet knew any differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Given that most Americans profess some loyalty to Christianity, Prothero is also justified in worrying that their devotion to church leaders and the Bible is increasingly governed by sentimentalism ( "All that matters is I love Jesus") and super-charged moralism.

What happened to the Christian emphasis on intellect? With notable exceptions, a majority of American Christians don't bother to look up what Jesus actually said in the New Testament, or how various Christian denominations have handled important ethical questions.

This is not to let Canadians off the hook. I worry that Canadians, who are more inclined to be atheistic or agnostic than Americans, might take comfort in believing they would do better on the Pew Forum's religious knowledge quiz.

That self-satisfaction could even be more of a temptation in British Columbia, which has the most atheists on the continent -- 14 per cent of the population, compared to four per cent in the U.S. As an atheist Vancouver Sun colleague told me: "I'm not surprised at the Pew findings. We know what we're rejecting."

Which might be true, but only to a point. While the religious knowledge of the new celebrity foes of faith -- such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris -- is no doubt better than the U.S. average, it often falls frustratingly short. Dawkins et al. almost always find ways to avoid dealing with the insights of religious intellectuals.

Instead of believing that Canadians, and critics of religion, may have reason to feel good about their level of religious understanding, I would maintain the relatively high number of atheists in Canada, combined with the incredible diversity brought to this country by Asian immigration, make up strong reasons that Canada is in a position to lead the way on building more religious literacy.

Canadians need to know not only what Christians and Muslims think. They need to understand what beliefs fuel the actions of their next-door neighbours, who are often likely to be Budhists, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs.

How can we better educate Canadians about their own religions, about the faiths of others, and about the philosophical beliefs behind secular humanism?

I join Prothero in suggesting we follow the European model and make world religion courses, also called world view courses, a regular and mandatory aspect of kindergarten-to-Grade 12 education.

As much as many university academics might hate it, I also suggest it would be beneficial to require one religious studies course of anyone wanting to obtain a bachelor's degree in Canada.

North American religious illiteracy threatens both our well-being as members of a civil society, and raises the spectre of grave misunderstandings in foreign policy.

Educators should not give in to the kind of unfounded anxiety that has traditionally barred efforts to make world religion courses a part of every Canadians' education.

Many in Canada's education system seem to have the same false belief of three in four Americans, who admitted to the Pew Forum pollsters they didn't know public school teachers are allowed to read from the Bible and other sacred texts as an example of literature.

As long as there is no sectarian preaching in public-school classrooms, there is absolutely no law in Canada or the U.S. against teaching facts and history about religious and other value-laden world views.

What exactly should be taught about religions in our schools?

Educators can start with the 60-page Dictionary of Religious Literacy that makes up the last third of Prospero's book. It covers almost everything that a reasonably informed adult should know about religion -- from Islamic fatwas to the Last Supper, from Reform Judaism to the Second Coming.

The time has come for many more Canadian educators to be teaching about Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Martin Luther and the Vatican, as well as about noted atheists such asAlbert Camus and Bertrand Russell.

I can almost guarantee most people would find such world view courses revealing, and possibly even life-changing. At the minimum, for anyone with an open mind, they would at least be a bit of fun. 

OK - I know that's a lot longer than I normally post be here's the take-home observation for me:  In a culture that values learning and breadth of tollerance and global experiences like ours does, it stands to reason that worldview education would form a core part of ciriculum and that this would include an exploration of the Christian worldview.

It is interesting to me that most often, I hear the argument that Jesus should be taught in the classroom from people outside the Christian faith.  Mostly Christians get 'chippy' about this stuff and then usually resort to preachiness or a dreary "God-has-forsaken-our-nation" kind of attitude (and then they wonder why they don't get invited into the classroom to speak).  But the suggestion keeps emerging that in order to rightly understand the world and worldview of your neighbours, you need to understand Jesus.  This is a great opportunity for conversation.

I have an aquanitence who is church planting in the city of Vancouver and who was invited into his son's Grade 5 class to teach about who Jesus is.  The reason?  Nobody else at the school had a level of comfort or knowledge that they could share.  The result?  A Christian who hasn't lost his mind was warmly welcomed into the public sphere to present Jesus to a bunch of secular humanists adults and curious kids.  Sounds like good news to me.     

Sumner shopping spree goes viral via Mary Hunt's Everyday Cheapskate

Some of you might remember that early last month our church hosted best-selling author and finance speaker Mary Hunt.  She writes a daily column called Everyday Cheapskate that goes out to hundreds of thousands of people internationally via her website www.debtproofliving.com. Well, wouldn't you know it, Meg and I got honourable mention in this week's column!  Yup, that's us... Mary's friends in BC.  I guess we're almost famous!    

"It Pays to Know Your Cuts of Meat - Everyday Cheapskate e-newsletter June 25, 2010  

Pop quiz: Which is the better buy? Pork sirloin roast for $2.89 per pound or boneless pork chops at $3.79 per pound?

If you answered the roast, you are in very good company (most of us did), but you are wrong! It all has to do with knowing your cuts of meat, something of which I was reminded just this past week.

I met Brad and Meg in British Columbia. In sharing our frugal stories, I learned that when they were first married and pretty much broke, their prayers were answered when they were notified they'd just won the supermarket sweep contest at their local market. The prize? Three minutes of unfettered shopping, during which they would be allowed to load as many groceries as they could into three shopping carts.

Meg and Brad split up, and headed for two areas of the market: meat and laundry detergent. I don't know the total dollar value of their prize, but they told me that, overnight, they went from surviving on hot dogs to prime rib and other high-end cuts of meat. Their prize was so huge, Meg confessed, that at one point in the months that followed, they were so tired of prime rib and T-bone steaks, they found themselves longing for a nice meal of good old ground beef.

While you're waiting to win a year's worth of anything (prime rib would be nice), you may be wondering how you can keep your meat costs at rock bottom. It is kind of a science. Here's what you need to know about that pork sirloin roast versus the boneless pork chops, and the all-important "price-per-serving," which is the key to meat wisdom.

If you want to reduce your food costs and at the same time raise your grocery shopping intelligence, start using "cost-per-serving" rather than "price-per-pound" when making meat selection decisions. Price-per-pound can be misleading because not all cuts of meat will yield the same number of servings per pound.

About twice as many people can be fed from boneless pork chops as from pork sirloin roast because the boneless chops have about four servings per pound, compared to two servings per pound for pork sirloin roast.

Although some boneless cuts may cost more on a per-pound basis, they may be more economical due to less waste. The amount of bone and fat waste determines the number of servings of cooked meat a cut will yield. What you pay for the edible portion is the important factor.

You can find very useful charts that provide this information by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Cooperative Extension. The charts and information include most cuts of meat and exactly the number of servings you can expect per pound.

Unless you are really great at memorization, I suggest that you print the chart and tuck it into your coupon caddy, backpack or handbag so you have the information handy whenever you shop for meat and poultry. That way, you'll never have to worry or wonder. And, you'll be all ready to go should you be hit with a pop quiz!"

©Copyright 2010 Mary Hunt

Activism without Action

Author Donald Miller recently observed "I am becoming increasingly convinced that activism is a fancy term for   raising awareness without actually doing anything." and I think he may be right!  Too many people seem obsessed with raising the profile of their particular charity or cause without actually lifting a finger to directly and meaningfully make a difference.  

For example, Miller tells of how he was more enamored with speaking to large groups of people about what a difference it made in the lives of boys with no father to have a mentor than actually spending time investing in the life of one such boy.

Church leaders, take note: how many times have you preached on something with passion and fervour but never actually done it yourself (been there, got the t-shirt).  I think we have a word for activism without action... and it ain't a compliment!  

The Authenticity Hoax

I read an intriguing except today from a forthcoming book called The Authenticity Hoax: How We Get Lost Finding Ourselves by Maclean's writer and prolific blogger Andrew Potter.  It's an intriguing piece where he argues that authenticity is the new social currency.  We used to worry about a strictly economic scorecard - keeping up with the Joneses - but now, argues Potter, we're past that.  We're into using carefully calculated experientially and ecologically focused measurement tools to impress and out-pace others.  "The trick now" Potter writes in Maclean's (p. 51 of the April 19th edition) "is to subtly demonstrate that while you may have a job, a family, and a house full of stuff, you are not spiritually connected to any of if.  What matters now is not just buying things, it is taking time for you, to create a life focused on your unique needs and that reflects you unique taste and sensibility."   

 

This leads to all kinds of stupidity, such as slum tourism (oh yes, it's a burgenoning sector for those bored with Disney but not sure they really want to get their hands dirty with real global mission work!), mud floors in suburban homes (a kind of get-back-to-nauture stunt that seems destined to backfire, at least here on the West coast!).  Finding oneself by being 'realer than you' is fast becoming the competetive quest of our time.  

The challenge is that it can be tricky to separate the genuinely good from the posers.  Potter continues: "in various guises, the authentic is seen as an answer to the individual need for spiritual meaning and fulfillment."  That people want authenticity is not at all surprising or wrong.  That they feel that they have achieved it by wearing a pair of distressed jeans and taking a trip through remote parts of Laos... I think by definition, we're missing the mark.    

A brief history of the next 50 years

I was doing some surfing on Fast Company magazine's site and came across a very interesting piece by professional futurist Richard Watson (how do you get that job anyway?).  He proposes some very interesting, if confusing, possibilities.  In an interesting and memorable twist he graphs it all out as a subway map (it's a bit hard to see so you may want to find it at his site)...  

 

A few low-lights - the death of personal responsibility, modesty, optimism, privacy, and dining rooms...

A few pieces of intrigue - baby licenses, on line funerals, hunger for shared experiences...

Will all of it come true?  Hardly.  But does it push the envelope of thinking and assist us in preparing for   the future?  Perhaps.  

A good resource here is Reggie MacNeal's"The Present Future" where he suggests that you can't plan for the future, per say, but you can position yourself within a culture of learning and a posture of readiness as a  leader and as an organization to met the demands and challenges of the future.  So perhaps the bigger question is 'are you ready'?

Organic Community

If you asked someone in North America the question 'what is the church?' (or 'where is the church?') 50 years ago they would likely look at you dumb-founded at your ignorance and make an concrete reference to a particular entity at such-and-such a street corner with such and such an architectural feature ("oh, it has a steeple" or "look for the white clapboard siding and stained glass windows, dummy!").  Because of our cultural conditioning, it was simply assumed that church had structure and by that we meant a physical space.  (I think that's where we got all the names like "First Methodist church" (etc.) from... they likely were not only the of their unique brand in town but were often - historically, anyway - at the very centre of town - a 'First-Street-meets-First-Avenue' kind of thing)    

Fast forward a little while and ask someone 'where is the church?' and you'd get an answer that spoke to chronology (the "when" question).  It was assumed that the spiritual activity designated 'church time' happened in a neat and tidy time slot almost always on Sunday mornings (mostly from 10:30 - 11:45 AM with just enough time to duck out early and beat the people from the Baptist church up the road who had an especially long winded preacher and wouldn't be let out until - GASP - 12:06 PM!).  What mattered was the activity and the assembly (neither of which are wrong, by the way.  They simply do not add up to the sum total of the word "ecclesia" which is the Greek word used to denote the church in the New Testament).

In part 2 (the Relational Life) of his book "So Beautiful" Len Sweet makes the point that thinking in this way is "the very essence of 10 September thinking ion a post-9/11 world."  The former paradigm thinks only in term of relationships forming in physical space or around traditional organizational frameworks as opposed to organically.  Similarly, postulates Sweet, "it is extremely difficult for the church to think of church less as a place and more as a set of relationships, a network of networks that can be nourished in multiple spaces (for more on these spaces, read Joseph Myers' great book "Organic Community").  The church is not a set of propositions, buildings of beliefs: the church is a network of relationships... with God, with the Scriptures, with each other, with creation." (139-140)  

It is a profound but simple (and challenging!) thought - the church as an organic network of networks.  The question is, how do you lead a network of networks towards health and deeper love for God and neighbour? How do you listen to and keep in step with the Spirit in that kind of messy and wonderful spirituality?  It's profoundly challenging, which is to say, I suppose, that it is organic!